|
« TAP TO LOG IN
|
Play online chess!
Shroud of Turin
« Back to club forum
| ||||||||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 bobspringettI was responding to Lord Shiva as the title bar suggested. And I was aggravated with the "declaration of" The .2mm is unexplained. So you are choosing this to satisfy a desire to believe. Because this is a supposition based and sprung from his own biases and opinions about me. "Which is fine' But what I have repeatedly said had been the opposite of that. It would be like me saying, LS you are clinging to the carbon 14 data, despite the chemist finding contamination, and saying that the other samples that were destroyed probably didn't have that much cotton fibers in them (like you would have any way of knowing that!) and despite the fact that repair has been proven, despite the fact that the dates being so far off from one another (the variance between the three Labs) and it is sited as statistical significant. Because of your desire that it be a forgery. I have put forth a lot of technical data that just gets blown off with suppositions and that's fine. But when someone tells me I'm basically clingy because I want to believe. It erks me. Like I need to believe that the shroud is real or something. It goes to mindset. And bias. It's like the last time this was brought up. All kind of suppositions were used to counter actual data collected by actual scientists. So why continue to debate that? |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 15:53 The reason for that is the methodology taken by the project as a whole. The examination of the shroud is not open access to any and all reputable investigators, but only to those selected by someone with a vested interest. The tests that are permitted are also subject to that same vested interest. This is NOT how a proper scientific investigation should happen. It is too pre-arranged, giving rise to the suspicion that only those tests will be permitted that will support one viewpoint will be permitted, or at least only those which can be 'explained away' if adverse. I can understand the custodians wanting to be careful with the shroud. They have every reason to ensure that no significant damage is done to it. That's fine! So any tests done on it should involve complete transparency and open to be monitored step-by-step anyone with recognised expertise as the tests are being done. Not just supplied with data after the event. And any tests which are vetoed should have the reasons for that veto set out in detail, including any expert dissent from those reasons being taken into account. But this is not what is being done. By far the most compelling reason that I have seen is the reference to pollen; but the data on how the reliability of those findings is a mystery to me. A full outline of the sample size, the relative composition of different species represented in the samples, the readings, the range of variation in test results, the amount in each sample, can all have significant impacts. It's not just a matter of getting a number from a machine and then reading an age off a chart. Apart from the pollen, most other arguments seem to be based on "How could anyone fake that?" In other words, an argument arrived at by force of ignorance, assuming (as Thumper did recently) that if I can't figure out how to fake it, nobody else would be smart enough either. And which completely disregards the possibility of some unknown natural process as well. ALL arguments, on both sides of 'authentic' and '13th century fake', have gaps that they have not answered. Until these gaps are filled, I say the jury's verdict should be 'not proven'. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett Are you saying that thier investigations weren't properly conducted or they aren't proper scientific investigations? Again I think what you have put forward is in regards to who writes what articles. I which case I completely agree with you. This is where the rubber meets the road for me. The shroud was depicted as an illustration (that had unique characteristic pened into the illustration that are unique to the shroud of Turin. In an Hungarian manuscript dated to the 1160's-90's well outside the variance of the original carbon dating results +/- The variation of dates between the three testing sites is an abnormality that is statistically significant (pointing to something not being right) while dates do vary, they don't vary by the margins record for theses tests. If it is a forgery it is even more fantastic. Someone from the medieval times put an image on the shroud in the form of a photographic negative, .2 micron's thick across the entire image. Hundreds of years before the invention of photography? I find this proposition to be practically impossible. I understand what you're saying about arguments being "how could anyone fake that" as I am having the same thoughts. But the fact remains that it isn't Thumpers and my conclusions. It's the fact that scientists can't even figure it out and the closest answer to how the image got on the shroud is a UV burst that is currently beyond our ability to produce. That I do find significant. Name one other forgery where science can't figure out how it was faked? Just one and I'll concede to your point and argument. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 21:56 No. I'm saying that they are not fully transparent and properly critiqued. <It's the fact that scientists can't even figure it out> Exactly my point. They can't figure it out, so some people conclude 'Miracle!' That is an unjustified leap. The correct, scientific answer is 'We don't know'. <Name one other forgery where science can't figure out how it was faked?> Think about what you just asked for. Until science figures out how a forgery is faked, then it isn't proven to be a forgery! What's to stop someone from answering that question with "The existence of Pluto. There really is no such minor planet, it's just that we don't yet know how all the observational evidence for Pluto has been faked." Besides which, I'm not saying the shroud is a fake. I'm saying that neither side can provide an adequate answer to the entirety of the evidence. Providing yet MORE evidence one way or the other is an exercise in futility unless the evidence AGAINST can be dismissed. |
|||||||||||||||
|
jonheck 04-Jan-25, 00:37 |
Bob |
|||||||||||||||
|
Fake Despite the presence of the cotton fibers I’m also not convinced the sample was from a repair section. No one thought it was a recent repair when the sample was taken, or they would not have taken it from there. They were excruciatingly careful about what area was sampled. And no modern forger could so skillfully weave a repair it seamlessly blends into original sections, which is what was noted in the objections I provided. If compelled to render a verdict, I think the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, despite lingering unanswered questions, such as the pollen and the date of the earlier similar shroud relic. en.wikipedia.org Do you suppose the Teutonic knights created their forgery to match the description praised in the Pray Codex? |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett "Think about what you just asked for. Until science figures out how a forgery is faked, then it isn't proven to be a forgery! What's to stop someone from answering that question with "The existence of Pluto. There really is no such minor planet, it's just that we don't yet know how all the observational evidence for Pluto has been faked."" I have thought about what I was asking. What you put forth isn't even close to what I am asking. Those thoughts are yours. I will further clarify. Anytime any investigation is performed or even in the medical field. There is a thing called case study where similar cases are examined for patterns and other documentation is examined. This is even true in homicide cases. If a ship goes down in the middle of the Atlantic, investigations will ask has this happened before? If so what are the circumstances? A case by case basis sir! In regards to Pluto, if there is inconsistencies in the images, then that is a reason to investigate. If someone claims those pictures are really of Planet X in its elongated elliptical orbit and that is 10x the size of earth. Then there is a reason to investigate. I would prefer that you compare Apple's to Apple's. "Besides which, I'm not saying the shroud is a fake. I'm saying that neither side can provide an adequate answer to the entirety of the evidence' And I'm not saying it's real. I am saying that it is more likely than not. Part of the evidence for that conclusion is the fact that it hasn't been figured out. And there are no other examples of a forgery that has been proven to be a forgery that they can't figure out how it was forged. This to me is Exculpatory evidence . I also started prior that even if it is dated to the 1st century it still doesn't mean it is the burial cloth of Jesus. Only that it is consistent with it being the burial cloth of Jesus. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Jon and LS Odds are statistics. If you have statistical conclusions based on actual statistics. I'm all ears. Otherwise I'm not entertaining the suppositions based on what? Opinion? And it isn't even learned opinion. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Here is a hint. 1 Take a wild guess at which one that is |
|||||||||||||||
|
Unexplained Forgeries Here are some examples of unexplained forgeries: The Donation of Constantine A forged document that claims the Roman emperor Constantine I gave Pope Sylvester I authority over the Roman Empire. The Kensington Runestone A stone with runes discovered in 1898 that some believe was carved by Vikings in the 14th century. Crystal Skulls Supposedly from Central America, these skulls began appearing on the antiquities market in the 19th century. The Great Brewster Chair A chair acquired by the Henry Ford Museum in 1970 that was actually made in 1969 by Armand LaMontagne. The chair was made to look like it was from the 1600s. A cup in the British Museum A cup that was thought to be genuine until the 1970s when another identical cup was discovered in the Metropolitan Museum. In 1980, two more similar cups were found, and it was established that all were made in the late 1800s. I looked up the Brewster Chair, it is unexplained how the forgery fooled experts. Or is it truly a forgery? I don’t think C14 tests have been conducted, and if they are could the forger have simply used 18th century lumber to produce the chair? There isn’t as much controversy over the Brewster Chair because it lacks any religious significance. If this had been the chair that seated Jesus at the last supper, much like the long sought chalice, many more experts would have stepped in to offer opinions. I note with wry amusement the heavy religious themes on the sites favoring “inconclusive” evidence for shroud authenticity, while a far more secular mindset pervades those concluding a 13th century provenance appears “astronomically” more likely. It is evident to me one faction “wants to believe,” and I apologize for projecting that onto you, Apatzer. You are open minded, only presenting the evidence—not conclusions. Though I think the conclusion the C14 sample was from a repair remains dubious. I know some factions insist on that, but I am inclined to agree with those who did the original selection. A fantastical repair doesn’t seem supportable. But it would be good to conduct separate C14 tests on both cotton fibers and linen fibers, to see if the ages agree. If we can date individual pollen grains, we should be able to do that. What fraction of carbon atoms are C14? AI responds: Only a tiny fraction of atmospheric carbon is C14, making up approximately one part per trillion (or 0.0000000001%) of all carbon atoms in the atmosphere; meaning that for every 10^12 carbon atoms, only about 1-1.5 are carbon-14 atoms. Oof. So we need enough carbon to count maybe a few hundred C14 atoms? (Guess). The good news is 12 grams of carbon contains 6x10^23 atoms. Say a few hundred quintillion remains a tiny fraction of that, which is a million times the trillion atoms we need for a C14 carbon. AI: Generally, a sample size containing about 1 mg organic carbon is needed for AMS radiocarbon dating. It is wise to check with your laboratory before proceeding. Some examples are given below. Smaller samples (0.2 mg C) can be dated but the error can be larger. AI: The mass of a pollen grain is approximately 22.4 x 10−9 g, or on average 100 nanograms. So a milligram (not microgram) is ten thousand pollen grains. Assuming we can get away with a fifth (0.2 mg) that is 2000 pollen grains. I’m dubious this many grains were sampled from the Turin cloth, though I’m satisfied they may have been properly identified as species unique to the region of the Middle East. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Unexplained Mysteries Collapse of WTC Building 7 What purpose is served by chemtrails (Thumper is big on this one, IIRC) Why did FBI infiltrators coordinate with Antifa and BLM to coax MAGA into fomenting insurrection How was the lunar landing hoax filmed (for Frank) Why do mRNA GPS vaccines magnetize some bodies? The Voynich Manuscript The Taos Hum Ball Lightning The extraterrestrial origin of Atlantis How NASA forges such seamless, compelling video of a spherical Earth (another for Frank) |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva Therefore this one doesn't apply. 2. The Kensington Runestone A stone with runes discovered in 1898 that some believe was carved by Vikings in the 14th century. This is a hotly debated topic, but science can definitely recreate it and know exactly how it was made. Hammer and chisel!!! This artifact doesn't apply. Lord Shiva, I didn't State that the parameters were unexplained forgeries. But unexplainable ones that science can not reproduce! Or has an adequate explanation of how they were produced in the first place!!! Do you speed read or skim my posts or are you pourposly wasting my time? Walk around south America and you can Buy 100 crystal skulls that are ironically much better productions... The other artifacts you listed were Proven to be faked and they definitely can be reproduced! |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Be best |
|||||||||||||||
|
Donation Back in reality, << "Valla was motivated to reveal the Donation of Constantine as a fraud by his employer of the time, Alfonso of AragonOffsite Link, who was involved in a territorial conflict with the Papal StatesOffsite Link, then under Pope Eugene IVOffsite Link. The Donation of Constantine had often been cited to support the temporal power of the Papacy, since at least the 11th century" (Wikipedia article on Lorenzo Valla, accessed 01-17-2009).>> So Valla had reason to want to believe the honest papal document withstanding centuries of the test of time was a fake, even though he could not possibly have known the words he insisted were anachronisms were not part of common vernacular Latin only four centuries earlier than he insisted. While modern scholars seem to concur, they all are simply revisiting papal authority the,selves for religious reasons. C14 tests could confirm the age of the original document, for which there were contemporary fourth century supporting documents. The emperor HAD been miraculously cured, and showed his gratitude. Not that many modern scholars have been hoodwinked by Valla, it is just that the misinformed opinion of a few have been widely promulgated. Having said all that I’ve no real stake—despite being authentic the emperor had no real authority to donate the empire to papal oversight. Religious conviction is always personal—I’m sure we both agree. I searched for reputable scholars who argue for document legitimacy but this isn’t one where anyone really cares—it isn’t like a holy relic. The examples I gave (except the pissing ones) were provided by the AI. I doubt we could forge a copy of the Donation no trained expert could distinguish as a forgery. But no one has genuinely shown the document doesn’t date back to the fourth century as claimed. Funny to be playing Devil’s Advocate with papal authority. Almost as funny as doing it with the shroud. |
|||||||||||||||
|
What you are doing is mudding the water with BS |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
|
IF If I asked a scientist how did that writing get on that page, they probably would either roll their eyes and walk away or laugh in my face. |
|||||||||||||||
|
BTW LS The X-ray data was peer-reviewed 2022 X-ray Dating: A peer-reviewed study concluded that the Shroud is most likely around 2,000 years old. This is " peer reviewed data "... www.mdpi.com 2013 Study by University of Padua: Using different methods, researchers suggested the Shroud dates back to between 300 BC and 400 AD, potentially placing it within the timeframe of Christ's life. www.usatoday.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 14:49 Because to accept the result of a test does NOT mean accepting the conclusions drawn by combining those results with external assumptions. For example, the results of a C14 test are NOT an age, but a measured concentration of C14. This measured concentration is one factor among others in determining an age. With sufficient time and funds, I could produce a document which is written in modern English, predicting that in three thousand years a Saviour would come, and that this would be confirmed in the End Days two thousand years later by the discovery of this very document by a bald man with a Koala emblem. A C14 test of the vellum would confirm it is five thousand years old. A five-thousand-year-old document in modern English predicting Jesus, the End Days, and its own discovery by little ol' me! Would you believe that? The truth is, I would do that by keeping a goat in an enclosed environment, feeding it vegetation grown in a greenhouse where all CO2 from the ambient atmosphere is severely diluted by mixing it with exhaust from a coal-burning stove. Coal, a fossil fuel, is virtually devoid of C14, so this could be used to dilute the 'normal' C14 concentration of CO2 in the greenhouse to what would match an artifact 5,000 years old. Then kill the goat and use it's hide for the vellum. I would also treat any organic components in the ink this way. And I would write into the text an assurance that the document will be divinely protected against decay, which would 'explain' why the ink didn't oxidise or the vellum dehydrate and become brittle, and any other 'age test' that might be applied. In fact, these would be used to 'prove' that it is inspired and divinely protected. Bingo! A perfect match! There would be some tests that 'proved' its age, and any other test that suggested otherwise could be explained away as part of the prophecy. And all because the assumption of a 'normal' atmosphere was false, not the measurement. Now, I'm not suggesting that any fraud occurred in the case of the shroud; only that every scientific 'test' imports assumptions that might or might not be accurate. It is the whole of the information that is needed to make an accurate assessment, and any mismatch indicates that any conclusion needs to be tentative. Yes, even those which show a 'perfect' match-up. I did a fair amount of research and thinking on this question when writing 'Bones'. Anyone who wants a free PDF of the publisher's proof only has to send me a P.M. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett If you produced a document stating that in 3,000 years "x" and they confirmed that the vellum was 5,000 years, your prediction may have been debunk by at least 2,000 years. Unless you wrote to document on 2,000 year old vellum hand made by Eumenes of Pergamum. That is a lot of what if's, and I am familiar with how they calculated the date according to their calibration by measuring the rate of decay in the carbon 14 because it is a radioactive isotope. And the ratio of c14 to c12 is also compared. Based on the halflife of c14 and along with a control sample. A date range is estimated. Half life of 5,730 years. Is that in the ballpark of how dating works? By the way, Velum was formulated in the 2nd century BCE, so if you were to date that today that's only 2,224 years. Just saying. And that's the reason along with weather it actually happened or not. That I wouldn't believe it, because your story doesn't add up. Sry. All of life is made of assumptions that may or may not be accurate. Heck we can't even measure anything with exactness or perfect measurements. Because the very act of measuring it changes the measurements. However when scientists conduct science and that science is peer reviewed and published. The. Until a refutation from a credible source. Then as you said IF, and it was. It should be good enough to say it is consistent. Now if there is other evidence working against that conclusion. I'm all ears. However what I read so far, while entertaining and good for learning.bis a lot of what if's, and stories. Backing those what if's up. Sorry that's not good enough. Either the X-ray data is accurate or it's not. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Patz 20:52 That is, that I used vellum and ink made NOW, but in circumstances such that the ratio of C14 mimicked what it would be if they were 5,000 years old. That was the point of the greenhouse with an atmosphere in which the C14 was artificially diluted by being mixed with CO2 from burning fossil carbon. So you are correct; the key to C14 dating is the ratio of C14 to C12, a ratio that I have manipulated by altering the atmosphere in the process used to grow the vellum. Thus, a vellum made now would carbon-date as though 5,000 years old. You say vellum is only 22 centuries old? Great! Modern English is only two centuries old! All the more 'proof' that the Modern English text on the 5,000 year-old vellum is indeed a divine miracle! <However when scientists conduct science and that science is peer reviewed and published.> Were anyone to prepare a vellum as I outlined, and then do C14 dating on the finished product, it wouldn't matter who did the testing under what protocols or peer reviews. The C14/C12 ratio would be the same for everyone, and that ratio would be the same as for a vellum that was genuinely 5,000 years old (assuming the control of the CO2 atmosphere was right. But to be sure, I would expect such a fraud would prepare several documents, all with slightly different conditions, and pick the one that tests showed had the target C14/C12 ratio). <Then as you said IF, and it was. It should be good enough to say it is consistent. Now if there is other evidence working against that conclusion. I'm all ears.> What 'ifs' do you mean in this part of your post? If you are talking about the 'ifs' in the various theories of the shroud, then I agree. But if you mean in the 5,000 year vellum I'm positing, those 'ifs' are not excuses after the fact, but an outline of the conditions going into the process. That's how experiments are designed! My apologies if there is any confusion here. <Either the X-ray data is accurate or it's not.> On the basis of your assurances, I accept the X-ray data as accurate. What I do NOT NECESSARILY accept is the interpretation of it. Just as the C14/C12 ratio on my specially-prepared vellum would be accurate, but the interpretation that it was 5,000 years old would NOT be accurate. There is a huge difference between data and interpretation. Those critters in the deep sea trenches have a C14/C12 ratio that would correspond to hundreds of thousands of years old, it has been so long since that carbon was in the atmosphere where it was formed; instead, it has passed through dozens of half-lives as it cycles through the abyssal food chain. A SIDE STORY A side-story on the issue of data vs interpretation. Here in Australia we had a notorious case in which a woman was found guilty of murdering her own baby by slitting her throat in the front seat of her car. Evidence included swabs taken from the underside of the dashboard; these swabs reacted to a chemical test which would show fetal blood but not adult blood. This was considered damning evidence. These were experts on distinguishing between fetal blood and adult blood! A neonate had been held at the level of the seat, and spurted strongly enough to spray the underside of the dashboard! The mum was convicted, and many gratuitous punishments and torments were heaped upon her as well as the strict legal sentence of imprisonment. Unfortunately, these experts on distinguishing blood were not experts when it came to inorganic chemistry. That indicator reagent also reacts to common rust. It was an old car. The swabs had picked up rust, not blood; but it looked like blood on the swab tip, and everyone was expecting blood, so nobody bothered to check whether or not it WAS blood. An unquestioned but false assumption. |
|||||||||||||||
|
bobspringett and Lord Shiva en.m.wikipedia.org I offer the above. He was the chemist who prepared the samples for C14 dating. Not what is written on his work on the shroud. Here is Raymond Rogers explaining why the dating is wrong. youtu.be |
|||||||||||||||
|
Apatzer 22:06 How much of that complaint is justified, and how much is driven by an agenda? I'm giving up on claims either way on these specifics because I think the whole question needs to be moved one or two steps back. How about taking all these complaints into account, then designing a protocol which all major experts can agree is a proper scientific approach, and ONLY THEN conducting the tests? With real-time assessments at each step and before the next? This sniping after the event is shambolic. And if, at the end of the process, the results are inconclusive, then let's just say "The results are inconclusive" and list why. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Depleted Carbon Bob jiggered the vellum age by feeding the goat grass from C14 poor carbon. By reducing the C14 count the way he suggests he throws off the radioisotope age, making the goat appear older. You’ve heard of the living crayfish that dated to 14000 years. They incorporated old carbon into their shells. Researchers, knowing how the animals lived, anticipated the shells would date older than they actually were, and creationists seized on the result to tout the unreliability of radiometric dating. |
|||||||||||||||
|
Image Formation www.shroud.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 23:21 <creationists seized on the result to tout the unreliability of radiometric dating.> Yes. Sometimes Creationists have to deliberately misinterpret science, but I suspect that crayfish example was pure-and-simple ignorance. The not only don't know what they are dealing with; they don't even know that they don't know. A character in 'Mission of the Argo says:- "The ignorant always have complete confidence in what they assert,” Heida agreed. “It makes them more persuasive.” |
|||||||||||||||
|
Shiva 23:59 (and Patz) It also implies that the shroud image was indeed produced by a corpse in the few hours or days after burial rather than being a later application. So far, so good. And it also implies that the shroud itself was produced in accordance with ancient methods (at least earlier than the Middle Ages, and practised in the First Century). So my current preference is to favour an 'ancient' (i.e., pre-Middle Ages) date and other information such as pollen suggesting a Middle Eastern origin. But the fact that the gospel narrative says the head cloth was separate from the body wrappings makes me doubt this was Jesus. Perhaps it was the shroud of another man from a later age when separate head coverings and tight bindings had been replaced by a single draped cloth. When discovered later the unusual markings invoked the belief that it 'must have been Jesus'. Anyway, I am prepared to be swayed otherwise on the basis of plausible evidence. Patz, if this information had already been provided in a form as clear as Shiva's article, but I had misunderstood it, you have my apologies. |
|||||||||||||||
|
The face cloth The Shroud of Turin and the "Sudarium of Oviedo", a face cloth, have been studied extensively to determine if they were used on the same individual. Forensic analyses reveal significant consistencies between the two, including blood type (AB), patterns of injury, and alignment with a bearded man who suffered crucifixion and wore a crown of thorns. The Sudarium appears to have been used before the Shroud, likely covering the face of the same individual while upright and bleeding. These findings suggest a strong forensic link between the two cloths. renewaljournal.com |
|||||||||||||||
|
Lord Shiva 23:59 |
|||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
